TORONTO – Two men sued by the Aga Khan for copyright infringementare denying they have violated the Ismaili leaders copyright by printing a book of his written and spoken instructions and guidance to his community. In a convoluted defence filed in Federal Court of Canada, Nagib Tajdin and Alnaz Jiwa – a Toronto lawyer – state they deny a key paragraph in the Aga Khan’s lawsuit.
Tajdin then accuses the Aga Khan’s direct subordinates of engaging in a campaign of slander to ruin his reputation. He also challenges the fact that he received two letters from the Aga Khan and a confirmation from the Aga Khan’s brother since he thinks the three communications were forgeries. Tajdin also states he has been threatened.
At the same time, they say the lawsuit was filed by an impostor but if they are personally satisfied by the fact that it was initiated with direct knowledge of the Aga Khan then they will stop printing the book.
The two defendant’s claim the lawsuit was filed by Dr. Shafiq Sachedina who works in the Aga Khan’s secretariat at Aiglemont, France.
On the website of the Heritage Society which is at the centre of the storm – the defendants have claimed their denial of the Aga Khan’s copyright is in fact a “glorification” of the Aga Khan.
The Aga Khan – leader of Ismaili Muslims worldwide and a reknowned philanthropist – claimed in paragraphs 2 and 3 of his lawsuit as follows.
2 This is a claim for lnfringement of copyright and moral rights relating to the unauthorized reproduction of the original Literary Works and Readings authored by the Plaintiff, His Highness Prince Karim Aga Khan C’the Aga Khan”).
3. The infringing material consists ofa book entitled ttFannans 1957-2009 – Golden Edition Kalam-E Imam-E-Zaman” (the “Book”). 11ris Book reproduces in substantial part a series of 589 Farmans and 77 Talikas and messages authored by the Aga Khan and delivered in various countries around the world between the years 1957 to 2009. The Book is accompanied by an mp3 audio bookmark preloaded with 14 audio extracts of Farmans read in the Plaintiff’s own voice (the ttMP3″). Collectively, the Book and MP3 are referred to herein as the “Infringing Materials”.
Yet, the defendants say they deny the statements contained in paragraph 2 and 3.
Jiwa claims the action was not authorized by the Aga Khan and if it was then “it was authorized based on misleading information given to the Aga Khan by his advisors.”
The claim that the Aga Khan has been misled is contained in this paragraph: “Jiwa states that the Aga Khan personally gave His consent and blessings to the publication of these Farman books on August 15, 1992, and also stated then to “continue” the work. To Jiwa’s knowledge and belief, the Aga Khan has not revoked His consent, and if this action was or is authorized by the Aga Khan, it was authorized based on misleading information given to the Aga Khan by his advisors.”
“For the reasons set out herein, Jiwa believes that the Aga Khan is not in reality the plaintiff, and that this action has been initiated by Dr. Shafiq Sachedina (“Shafiq”), who works out of the Aga Khan’s Secretariat Office at Aiglemont, France.”
“Jiwa denies that he has infringed the Copyright Act in any manner and form. The Farmans are made by the Aga Khan for His Jamats, with the intention the Jamats to follow each word of His closely and to abide by the guidance given by Him,” states the statement of claim.
“By seeking to reconstitute “the guidance that was given by the Imams of the Time”, the Aga Khan is seeking to have the Farmans made by previous Imams to be “reconstituted”. Farmans made by the Imams were always available to the Jamats, except in the recent years,” Jiwa claims.
He states in his statement of claim that even if copyright existed the statute of limitations applies and therefore the Aga Khan does not have copyright.
“Jiwa pleads that the limitations period provided for by the Copyright Act bars this action, as the publication of the Farman books was commenced in 1992 and continues to the present time. The Golden Edition was published in December 2009, and is a consolidation of all the previous Farman books published by Tajdin, updated with new Farmans.”
“Jiwa states that during the period he has been distributing the Farman books, he has never been informed by anyone, including the Aga Khan, any of His family members, or any of the institutional leaders to date, that he should not be distributing these books, or that the Farmans published therein have not been transcribed accurately.”
However, regardless of the legal arguments available to him, Jiwa offers to terminate the distribution of the books if ordered by the Aga Khan – once again implying that letters he received from the Aga Khan and his brother were faked.
“Accordingly, if this action is actually brought by the Imam, and if the Imam does not desire His Farman books to
be distributed to the Jamats as has been done since 1992, then Jiwa, despite any legal or factual defences available, such as limitations period, consent, implied consent, etc., will submit to the instructions of his Imam without reservation
whatsoever.”
Subject to the above paragraph, Jiwa asks the court to dismiss the lawsuit without costs.
Here are the documents of claim by Jiwa and Tajdin.
Imagine, LIF leaders or Shafique Sachedina is asked to testify and is asked to swear placing his hand on the Holy Quran or the Bible.....I promise to tell nothing but the truth so help me God. Yeah Right. Whateva. Alles alles.
ReplyDeleteBut what will happen if His Highness Aga Khan was brought to stand in the dock. He is asked to place his hand on the Holy Quran and .....I promise to tell nothing but the truth so help me god.
Oh God!
Mr. Nagib Tajdin: As your “Heritage” website is highly sanitized, you may decide not to display my post. That was the fate of my previous messages. Not sharing this post with your subscribers would be highly unethical and bring into question your true intentions. That would be sufficient proof that you are totally biased and will not post anything that favors the plaintiff, in this case, His Highness the Aga Khan who you profess to owe absolute loyalty to.
ReplyDeleteI have cited, hereunder, 3 cases that set precedent as to how the courts treat will treat testimony of your handwriting experts.
In Skidmore v. Gilcrease, slip op. (Ark Ct. App. Oct. 10, 1984), an Arkansas court was confronted with a handwritten will. Three non-expert witnesses “had known the deceased for substantial periods of time, they were familiar with his handwriting, and they all unequivocally identified the writing as being in his handwriting. On the other side, a handwriting expert testified that the will was a forgery. The court chose to believe the three non-experts over the expert. The appellate court agreed; since the expert was less believable than the three lay witnesses familiar with the deceased’s handwriting, the court was justified in accepting their testimony and discounting the expert’s claim that forensic science proved the writing was a forgery.
In Danvir Corp. v. Wahl, (slip op. Sept. 8. 1987) in Delaware Chancery court, the signature on a stock certificate was at issue. Plaintiffs claimed to be the only stockholders in the company while defendant claimed that stock ownership was evidenced by the stock certificate. The court noted that “Plaintiffs’ handwriting expert testified at trial that certificate No. 1X is a forgery” and “defendants’ handwriting expert reached the opposite conclusion.” Accordingly, the court concluded that the “testimony of the handwriting experts does not weigh on either side because they reached opposite conclusions as to the genuineness of the signature on that certificate and I find no basis on which to prefer one expert opinion over the other.”
A federal Court of Appeals considered a case in which an insurance company wanted to avoid paying out on an insurance policy. Continental Casualty Co. v. Brightman, 437 F.2d 37 (10th Cir. 1972). To avoid payment, the insurance company claimed that insurance policy application was forged and thus it did not have to pay the insured’s claim. The insurance company hired its own forensic scientist who testified that the application was a fake, but the court decided not to believe the insurance company’s handwriting expert. Instead, the court credited the opinion of the handwriting expert for the insured’s representative, who testified that the application was genuine. The court accordingly required the insurance company to pay on the policy.
These cases demonstrate that handwriting analysis does not provide definitive proof. In commercial and criminal litigation in the United States, it is common for opposing parties to obtain experts to support both sides of a claim: the plaintiff may have an “expert” who testifies the writing is authentic; the defendant could have another “expert” who testifies that the writing is forged. The courts recognize this and hence do not treat the testimony of handwriting experts as fact, but merely as informed opinion which must be weighed against the remainder of the evidence
The Agakhan has a hot potato in his hands. The Defendants have put a blasphemous statement in a Canadian court i.e "the Ismailis consider the Agakhan as a manifest God".He has to file a statement of reply in which he either admits or deny that he is God! According to Canadian lawyers, if he is transmitting the words of God, then he has no copyright protection. If he is God, then his words are for the world(and they dont need to be "edited")
ReplyDeleteIt is time for Ismailis to chose whther they are Hindu's or Muslims.
There is no such statement in the Canadian Court. Documents in the Canadian Courts are public and everyone can see that your information is wrong.
ReplyDeletePost a Comment
Thank you for your valuable comments and opinion. Please have your comment on this post below.